V for Vendetta

[Occhidiangela]

It is unusual for me to find a movie better than the book it came from, but my viewing last night of V For Vendetta arrived at that judgment.

A graphic novel is somewhat like a rough screenplay and story board combined, or it can be. This feature makes the transition from book to film less dramatic for me, since I don't have as many pictures built in my own head before the film clashes with them.

Moore's novel suffered from some trouble with character differentiation among the government officials and cops. The film gave an explicit face and voice to each one.

The 10:00 PM show was filled mostly with college aged folk, and I found myself surprised by where in the film they laughed . . . unless some of them were laughing at jokes whispered to one another.

Natalie Portman redeems herself somewhat as an actress, in my eyes, after the abominations she foisted upon the movie audiences recently, in both the Star Wars mess and Closer. Tough role, she handled it pretty well.

Hugo Weaving does a fine job as V, which is a bit tough to do, what with the mask and all.

I found an eerie similarity to Serenity when a commander used the term "Stand Down" at the end. The discipline of the soldiers in both films, in not shooting unless explicitly ordered in a very tense situation, was strikingly portrayed.

This movie is well worth a look, and well directed. That said, it mainains a few of the same plot holes, and challenging suspensions of disbelief, as the graphic novel

-- V's hideout never being found, given where it is? Right
-- How did he get electricity down there without the computerized control and billing system tracking down the stray juice?
-- V's unearthly agility
-- Where V got all the stuff to cram onto the train

So, a well done to the team who put that film together. A few of the political references from the Thatcher era to the current context were expected, and of course provided. The Brit-Centric nature of the film was preserved, thank goodness.

My only real complaint was that John Hurt's dictator/chancellor character was never calm, always ranting. That was, IMO, a mistake made on the nature of the dictator/chancellor. It made him more cartoonish, not more real. Why the director chose to make him less believable, and more cartoonish, escapes me. The film would have resonated better had that character been icy cool, which Hurt pull off quite well.

Occhi

[GenericKen]

Really.

I heard that the initial screenings pegged the movie as an abomination of the book. Maybe they managed to fix it.

I'll wait on rottentomatoes before seeing it though.

[Maitre]

It is unusual for me to find a movie better than the book it came from, but my viewing last night of V For Vendetta arrived at that judgment.
-- snip --
So, a well done to the team who put that film together.
-- snip --
[right][snapback]104857[/snapback][/right]

Editorial Review
As V in "V for Vendetta," Hugo Weaving is a stagy voice emanating from a hole in the polyurethane phiz clamped over his real mug. As a revolutionary dedicated to tearing down the state, he looks like a guy in a comic book. (Wait, he was a guy in a comic book.) That almost completely ruins the audience's ability to connect with his lonely mission, and the filmmakers know it, so they front-load the regime he despises to make up in hatred what they can't create in empathy. The Britain in question in some near future is a dystopian horror: It seems to have been taken over by a liberal's darkest fantasy of the conservative right -- a gay-hating, woman-fearing Taliban, puritanical and single-minded, determined to crush human enterprise, creativity and love at every stop.

First-time director James McTeigue tells the story (an adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel by Andy and Larry Wachowski, the brothers behind "The Matrix") not from V's point of view, but from that of Evey Hammond, played by the eternally underwhelming American actress Natalie Portman, behind a whisper of a Brit accent that comes and goes at random. Forlorn and mundane throughout, she's set upon in the beginning by a trio of thug/cop/rapists, when V steps out of the darkness and with a samurai's grace, magically disarms and discombobulates them.

That incident sets into motion a variety of plot strands, and it all builds to a celebratory reenactment of Guy Fawkes's deepest dream. We watch in rapt enthusiasm as Parliament goes up in an apocalyptic gush of flame.

"V for Vendetta" is a piece of pulp claptrap; it has no insights whatsoever into totalitarian psychology and always settles for the cheesiest kinds of demagoguery and harangue as its emblems of evil. They say they want a revolution? Then give us a revolution, one that's believable, frightening, heroic, coherent and not a teenagers' freaky power trip.

-- Stephen Hunter

The Washington Post movie critic would seem to disagree with you. I heard Mr. Hunter on the radio this morning elaborating on the film, when he explained that the audience is intended to empathize with the antihero as they recognize the oppressive nature of the regime he fights, but that the constant detached portrayal of said hero prevents identification. Essentially, the director didn't bring V close enough to the audience for them to root for his style of anti-establishment action.

I'm hoping to sneak into a screening this week-end in order to decide for myself. The wife won't see anything in the theater unless it 1. is a "romantic comedy," 2. is a princess story, or 3. stars Sandra Bullock (please don't ask me why, I don't understand either).

edit: corrected some parenthetic issues

[Hammerskjold]

Hopefully I'm seeing V this weekend, since it's the only movie that interests me that's out right now. But would you say V broke the 'curse' of films based on Moore's books? The main reason I'm asking is really because of 'Watchmen'.

[Occhidiangela]

Really.

I heard that the initial screenings pegged the movie as an abomination of the book. Maybe they managed to fix it.

I'll wait on rottentomatoes before seeing it though.
[right][snapback]104867[/snapback][/right]

Rotten Tomato reviews were mixed, I went anyway. Glad I did.

For the artsy fartsy, pretentious fanboi crowd for Moore's graphic novel, I have this to say:

Remove head from cranium. (I wearied quickly of Tolkein fans who screamed about the loss of Bombadil in the LOTR films.)

The movie improved upon the story by tightening it up and giving it better focus. Sure, a few details here and there end up on the cutting room floor -- the cop on LSD being one of them, thank goodness, that was part of what I disliked in the book -- that happens with every book to film move. Those who swoon over Moore's morbid fascination with anarchy as a solution to bad government are useless as critics. They have their heads so far up their arses that they may see daylight through their navels.

Restated in a different form for emphasis: the slavish fans of the graphic novel, which suffered from darkness in art and from pretenstions of modern pseudo intellectual Moore, are already suspect as credible critics. Remember, Moore was throwing up his hands in despair over "fascism" in the Thatcher era of the mid 1980's. I was laughing at him, not with him, when I read his forward to the graphic novel.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hopefully I'm seeing V this weekend, since it's the only movie that interests me that's out right now.  But would you say V broke the 'curse' of films based on Moore's books?  The main reason I'm asking is really because of 'Watchmen'.
[right][snapback]104869[/snapback][/right]

Didn't see Watchmen, so I am unable to comment.

I very much enjoyed Sin City, the film, taken from Miller's graphic novels. Does that help any?

Occhi

[Hammerskjold]

Sorry I should've wrote that clearer. I enjoyed 'League of Extraordinary Gentleman' the novel, but the movie version was meh, it's more of late night cable flick calibre. And I'm saying this as a fan of Connery chewing scenery.

'Watchmen' will be out depending on which rumour mill you go to, either this year, next year, or the ninth of never. I enjoyed the novel, and the creator's politics aside (Moore is a self proclaimed anarchist and does come off as a kook in interviews sometimes) the quality of the book is definitely high. I definitely would want to see a screen version if it's done well, but I'm still a bit wary after 'League'.


>I very much enjoyed Sin City, the film, taken from Miller's graphic novels. Does that help any?

A little bit, I probably will still go sometime this week to see it.

[Occhidiangela]

Sorry I should've wrote that clearer.  I enjoyed 'League of Extraordinary Gentleman' the novel, but the movie version was meh, it's more of late night cable flick calibre.  And I'm saying this as a fan of Connery chewing scenery.   

  'Watchmen' will be out depending on which rumour mill you go to, either this year, next year, or the ninth of never.  I enjoyed the novel, and the creator's politics aside (Moore is a self proclaimed anarchist and does come off as a kook in interviews sometimes) the quality of the book is definitely high.  I definitely would want to see a screen version if it's done well, but I'm still a bit wary after 'League'. 
>I very much enjoyed Sin City, the film, taken from Miller's graphic novels.  Does that help any?

  A little bit, I probably will still go sometime this week to see it.
[right][snapback]104872[/snapback][/right]

V is far better than the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen film. By orders of magnitude. That movie stank worse than old Limberger cheese. Graphic novel was pretty decent, recently borrowed it from the same guy who lent me V for Vendetta.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I'm hoping to sneak into a screening this week-end in order to decide for myself.  The wife won't see anything in the theater unless it 1. is a "romantic comedy," 2. is a princess story, or 3. stars Sandra Bullock (please don't ask me why, I don't understand either).

edit: corrected some parenthetic issues
[right][snapback]104868[/snapback][/right]

I suspect that critic probably doesn't buy the Moore line about anarchy being a solution any more than I do. I understand his critique, but I find his forgetting to review the movie on its own merits a shortcoming of his review.

The story is blatantly dystopian, in structure, from word one. Aldous Huxley would probably have approved of this film, though it nods to Orwell more than Huxley in story line. Hunter seems not to have forgiven Portman for her association with Star Wars and Closer. This calls his integrity and objectivity as a reviewer into quesiton.

Given the story and the role, Portman did well, as did Weaving.

Occhi

[GenericKen]

I suspect that critic probably doesn't buy the Moore line about anarchy being a solution any more than I do.  I understand his critique, but I find his forgetting to review the movie on its own merits a shortcoming of his review. 

The story is blatantly dystopian, in structure, from word one.  Aldous Huxley would probably have approved of this film, though it nods to Orwell more than Huxley in story line.  Hunter seems not to have forgiven Portman for her association with Star Wars and Closer.  This calls his integrity and objectivity as a reviewer into quesiton.

Given the story and the role, Portman did well, as did Weaving.  

Occhi
[right][snapback]104875[/snapback][/right]

Actors don't make the movie; the directors do, and I have no good faith in the Wachowski brothers.

In lighter news:

Your costar, Natalie Portman, had a shaved head. I would have felt like rubbing it.

I was always doing that. It's a very pleasurable feeling. I don't know how pleasureable it was for her. She slapped my hand away a couple of times.

:whistling::whistling::whistling:

[Occhidiangela]

Actors don't make the movie; the directors do, and I have no good faith in the Wachowski brothers.

In lighter news:
:whistling::whistling::whistling:
[right][snapback]104882[/snapback][/right]

The W brothers did not fall into Matrix II or III foolishness. Thank goodness.

Thanks for the Hugo bit, that made me chortle.

Occhi

[Hammerskjold]

>Actors don't make the movie; the directors do, and I have no good faith in the Wachowski brothers.

If by make you mean more control, of course. But if you mean otherwise, I like to think in an ideal situation both those roles contribute greatly, or in most cases at least break them equally. ;)

Though for my money, 2 usually underappreciated roles actually contribute a great deal more to a film, the writer and the editor.

Of course take this with a grain of salt, my idea of a 'perfect' actor movie features an animated version of Morgan Freeman, James Earl Jones, Christopher Walken, the late Marlon Brando, all doing their take of reading from a phone book.

[Jester]

Actors don't make the movie; the directors do, and I have no good faith in the Wachowski brothers.
[right][snapback]104882[/snapback][/right]

Non sequitur; the Wachowski brothers wrote it, but didn't direct it.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Non sequitur; the Wachowski brothers wrote it, but didn't direct it.

-Jester
[right][snapback]104903[/snapback][/right]

A penny loaf to feed ol' Pope,
A farthing cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down,
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar,
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head,
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah!
But they didn't write this, nor did they do aught but take out of context the Fifth of November events as a sprinboard into the justification for anarchy.

Given the Pope's policy about the borders of my land, I rather feel the same way some mornings.

Occhi

[Roland]

Your review rang true. The Washington Post has its head eternally up its arse, as ever, so I don't follow anything they say.

My instincts on movies (among other things) have never failed me. They did not do so this time. "V for Vendetta" was incredible, given the dearth of movies that have come out as of late. It was a breath of fresh air, cleaning out the old garbage and setting the stage for the "blockbuster summer". This is one movie I will definitely own as soon as it comes out on video.

Matrix aside, they made a great movie. When they're not going off on some God-complex, I think they can be very competent directors, with the right story behind them.

Go see V for Vendetta. You won't be disappointed, even if it costs you an arm and a leg at the theatre. :P

[jahcs]

My wife and I went to see it and we had a good time.

The key to movie screening nowdays is to go in with no expectations. Avoid high and low expectations, they just get in the way.

We saw the trailer and read a bit of the blurb in the paper, thought it might be a nice outing and went.

The movie, while being a bit campy, does make you think. How much of the media's tripe are you willing to swallow? Do you take everything that comes from "official sources" as gospel? When does "safety legislation" move into the realm of tyranny? Besides, there's some melee action, a few good songs, and stuff blows up.


EDIT: Oh, and "-- V's unearthly agility" was briefly mentioned in the film as a byproduct of certain events in his past.

[martini]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I really enjoyed this movie - went on Friday night on a whim, and it was great. I loved that for some of the flashback-type scenes, they used real BBC anchors, that was a nice touch.

[[wcip]Angel]

Loved it!

From someone who a) Hates superhero-movies and B) Can't stand the Matrix sequels, I wasn't expecting much, but this movie really blew me away. Sure, the somewhat pretentious monologues did put me slightly off, but the story was interesting and (to a degree) unpredictable (which is what I like in a story). The performances were great. Portman can act (!) - who knew (besides Luc Besson)?

Occhi, I didn't feel the reference to Serenity, although the arch-chancellor sure sounded a lot like Sir Ian McKellen from the movie "Richard III".

Also: *best* *use* *of* *1812* *Overture* *ever* !!

V for Vendetta is an 'intelligent' popcorn-flick. You don't have that many in this genre, so go see this one. (And then go buy Serenity :P)

edit: Oh, and who the hell is this guy???



:whistling: :huh: :o :blink: :wacko: :unsure:

Alfred? Oh wait! Wrong superhero!

edit: Note to mods:
The " Enable emoticons?"-feature doesn't work. Whenever I turn this off, the post removes all smilies, but when I return to the forum after having been away, the smilies are back. (Hence the "B)" ( b ) ) in this post.)

[Doc]

I shall have to go see this.

[Occhidiangela]

Angel,Mar 28 2006, 05:00 AM]Occhi, I didn't feel the reference to Serenity, although the arch-chancellor sure sounded a lot like Sir Ian McKellen from the movie "Richard III".

Also: *best* *use* *of* *1812* *Overture* *ever* !!

V[right][snapback]105636[/snapback][/right]

It wasn't a Serenity reference per se. What was striking to me was identical use of language in a nearly identical situation: the official commanding heavily armed troops on the ground, with mission orders to "deal with" (most likely kill) the anti Government forces, has an epiphany during a very stressful stand off. He, developed better in Serenity than in V, feels a connection to the people he has been sent to "deal with." He chooses, as a moral man, not to shoot, just as The Operative chose NOT to slay the crew of Serenity. The imiplication is that the veil has been lifted from his eyes by the actions of the rebels.

A moral decision by soldiers, in a system depicted as amoral, almost two dimensionally so, approaches a deus ex machina -- unless one subscribes to the theme that soldiers are often lied to by their leaders, and thus run into decision points when faced with the morbid truth. There's an interesting parallel to contemporary events. ;)

The similarity in theme and resolution leapt from the screen at me, the styles were considerably different. Serenity's was better fleshed out, story-wise.

For Hammerskjold:

Thanks for the tip, I borrowed and read "Watchmen.

My, that is a fine work. B)

I hope they do not make it into a movie. A mini series, maybe, but not a movie. Warner Brothers picked it up from Paramount, but I don't think a film can do that remarkable Hugo winner justice. Look at what Hollywood did with a fairly straight forward story like Starship Troopers: they abused it.

Occhi

EDIT since I meant to hit Preview. Spaz. :o